An honest inquiry into the nature of Christology by a Trinitarian

Wilber said:
The Bible proclaims The deity to the world.

1. John 1:1,14 “The Word was God….The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”
2. John 1:18 NASB “The only begotten God.”
3. John 20:28 Thomas said to him [Jesus] “My Lord and my God.”
4. Titus 2:13 “Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
5. Hebrews 1:8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever.”
6. 2 Peter 1:1 “Our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
7. 1 John 5:20 “Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.”
8. Colossians 2:9 “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”
9. Isaiah 9:6 “For to us a child is born….and he will be called….Mighty God.”
10. Isaiah 7:14/Matthew 1:23 “Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.”
11. Hebrews 1:3 “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being….
12. Colossians 1:15,16 “He is the image of the invisible God….by him all things were created.”
13. Acts 20:28 The church was purchased with the blood of God.
14. 2 Corinthians 4:4 “Christ, who is the image of God.”
15. Romans 9:5 “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised.”
16. 1 Corinthians 1:24 “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
17. 2 Thessalonians 1:12 “Our God and Lord Jesus Christ.”
18. Philippians 2:6 “being in very nature God.” (The Greek could be literally translated “continuing to subsist in the form of God.”)22

In light of all these scriptures and more, can any thinking person logically deny that the Bible teaches Jesus Christ is God?
Click to expand...

Nobody is denying He is God. In spite of that is what he wants to be believed.

What is happening is what the Bible teaches us in Philippians 2:6-8, that Jesus, who eternally was being God, chose to deny himself of his right to function in the full powers of God.



Who, being eternally in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God
something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!​


Powers of Deity he had fully known before the Incarnation.. His humanity was fully enabled by His own Deity's powers.
But, as a man? To be a man? He had to cease (by choice) to stop empowering His soul in the full powers of God.
If He did not choose to do that? He would never have been able to be sympathetic with us in our weaknesses when he
faced temptations just like we do.... But, unlike us? He remained faithful and never sinned



For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses,
but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 4:15​

For the Incarnation the Lord chose to limit His Deity's enabling powers.
Limit power as to not exceed the level that of what a sinless perfect man would have at his disposal as a man.

God can *easily* limit how His power is manifested. Nothing is impossible for God. (Luke 1:37)

Here is an example...

When a father is playing around the house with his little boy?
Does that father use all his might when horsing around?
No.. For he could break that young child's bones if he had done that.

But, while horsing around?
Did that father stop being a strong adult?
No!
That father willingly limited his expression of his strength potential!

Likewise, God like with that human father, chose not enable Jesus to exceed the power of what normally would be for a man..
All the while? Always remaining God in his *unlimited* powers and strength potential.
Being like that father? Limiting his own potential for expression.


Look... In spite of your denials, I am giving good answers.

I know they must be wasted on some.

But,. for others? I speak the Truth as I know it.


Its a great day for sailing somewhere! 🌴🌴🌴
 
Some here are in agreement with one another not to allow themselves to understand what is being said.

In doing that?

They find their stronghold.....

Which is not a real stronghold at al.
 
@GeneZ
The term kenosis refers to the doctrine of Christ’s “self-emptying” in His incarnation. The word comes from the Greek of Philippians 2:7, which says that Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (ESV). The word translated “emptied” is a form of kenoó, from which we get the word kenosis.

Notice that Philippians 2:7 does not specify what the Son of God “emptied” Himself of. And here we must be careful not to go beyond what Scripture says. Jesus did not empty Himself of His divine attributes—no such attributes are mentioned in the verse, and it is obvious in the gospels that Jesus possessed the power and wisdom of God. Calming the storm is just one display of Jesus’ divine power (Mark 4:39).


Think hypostatic union
The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time.

Got?
 
Wilber said:
@GeneZ
The term kenosis refers to the doctrine of Christ’s “self-emptying” in His incarnation. The word comes from the Greek of Philippians 2:7, which says that Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (ESV). The word translated “emptied” is a form of kenoó, from which we get the word kenosis.

Notice that Philippians 2:7 does not specify what the Son of God “emptied” Himself of. And here we must be careful not to go beyond what Scripture says. Jesus did not empty Himself of His divine attributes—no such attributes are mentioned in the verse, and it is obvious in the gospels that Jesus possessed the power and wisdom of God. Calming the storm is just one display of Jesus’ divine power (Mark 4:39).


Think hypostatic union
The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time.

Got?
Click to expand...
Notice that Philippians 2:7 does not specify what the Son of God “emptied” Himself of.

Well if He emptied himself of his humanity?

That would not make for a very good man. Now would it?

And, that does not mean he emptied Himself of His Deity...
Only by denying Himself of His right to be empowered by Deity for anything that would exceed
the normal power normally associated with being a man.


He walked on water.

Yet, keep in mind.

Peter did as well.

grace and peace ..............
 
Last edited:
dizerner said:
As a Trinitarian I can honestly recognize some logical problems with Christology as classically stated. Why wasn’t Christ more clear about the formulation we’ve come to hold, and why would he leave us logical dilemmas concerning it? Honestly these logical problems can seem strange and daunting and I’ve found fault with a lot of classic Trinitarian definition and jargon matching up with exactly how Scripture has presented itself to me. Someone may find interest in some modifications I’ve felt I’ve had to make to these standard explanations and enjoy my journey of thought.

I want to be up front about my methodology. It may be considered that in the end, one cannot understand the Bible by logic or the mind alone, and taken without a lens or key of revelation, we will constantly find what seems to us contradictions or obscurity in the Bible. I will up front confess that I completely and firmly hold to the idea of revelation alone, and that conversely the mind or logic, however you may understand that, must be insufficient for understanding spiritual truths. In that case, I would consider it urgent that all our study not only be bathed in intellectual arguments, but deep prayer and sincerity about the matter. I would never hide the fact that my personal beliefs are based on actual experience and I think it is definitely Biblical to do so.

I believe God is one being containing or pertaining to three individual personalities such that whatever makes up the three does indeed separate the oneness without completely losing it. Although I feel I can hold this idea in my thoughts, it does seem like a real paradox; yet I would say we find other such paradoxes in Scripture in the oneness of Christ and his bride, the unity of humanity in Adam, the unity of believers in the body of Christ, and the unity of those joined in marriage. Although the Scripture clearly portrays each individual as a real and separate individual, it also just as clearly portrays the whole as one true and viable entity, thought of in the singular; and forcefully so that it seems more than just mere metaphor. I was raised in an individualistic Western culture and it’s personally difficult for me logically and emotionally to consider myself in a corporate unity, so I don't feel I easily grasp it.

So where I have problems with the classic formulation or definitions I’ve seen, is the lack of ontological change in the incarnation. I just honestly can’t see that in the Scripture, which seems to very vividly and markedly describe a real change in the nature of Christ. I wouldn’t say I knew exactly what that change was, but it was certainly a change if I am going to be honest with the text and not come with a precommitment to make it fit what I have already decided. Jesus is said to have “become” something, to have “left” something, to have “emptied” himself of something, to have “taken on” something, to have “impoverished” himself in some way. This is dishonest speech when applied to no real ontological change. Jesus uses descriptions of locality and identity such as “I came from X” or “I know X” and uses time tenses such as “I shared (past tense) glory” in a definite time in the past that he did not share in the same way currently. This is misleading and disingenuous speech if we are to assume that an omni-being is speaking.

Sure, we can attempt to explain this away as heavy metaphor for a human nature manifesting itself, and thus the “real” Christ is the divine side of him, separate from all this human nature talk. Intuitively Trinitarians gravitate to descriptions that include some kind of temporary “setting aside” of divine attributes, whether we call it “veiling” them or making them “dormant,” basically any speech that turns them off without completely eliminating them. And this idea can preserve the whole structure of a classic understanding of the Trinity, giving the third person two natures and localizing him in the divine side. But the question I stared frankly in the face is, is that really what Scripture is doing here, making the man Jesus Christ just an “add-on” nature to a divine person? I could not walk away honestly feeling the Bible does that, and so somewhere I had to rework my understanding.

I believe the case for Jesus being divine is unavoidable, and not just “god-like” but actually pertaining to the uncreated Creator. Jesus is said to be exalted to a point that would be completely inappropriate, idolatrous and blasphemous for any entity, even the most powerful angel or holy man ever created. Jesus is said to accomplish things that no creature has the resources or ability to do, to expiate an infinite crime against the holiness of God, to contain the concept of life itself inside of him, to conquer death by his own power, and even be an integral part in creating all things. These are things a mere creature cannot do, and no one should ever be convinced that they could. But the question that still haunts all these ideas unassailably is: How can God becoming a man to die for the sins of the world mean he experiences no real ontological change?

Where you see the Unitarian always gravitating towards in their “gotcha” questions and problems, is always this singular problem of a logical contradiction in one thing consisting of two contradictory properties: something that is genuinely a creation contradicts in its most essential ontological nature with the properties of something that is genuinely uncreated, such we find as much incompatibility as a square being a circle or a bachelor being married. We lose all sense of comprehensibility or unity of thought by positing definitions that no longer seem to fit. And every Trinitarian I’ve ever seen anyway, would willingly admit to a very high degree of mystery and a limitedness to really fully comprehend it; and sometimes even, when cornered particularly badly, just completely punt to mystery.

So when Jesus Christ says “I came from the Father into the world,” whom (or what?) might we ask is speaking under classic Trinitarian formula: a human nature that is not a localized person? A divine omni-being with no limits or physicality? A combined entity with contradicting properties? An add-on nature using “baby talk” that doesn’t literally mean anything we normally understand it to mean? All these options proved unacceptable to me if I were going to not simply find comfort in my previous understanding, but give the real, honest and utmost reverence to the words I read in the Holy Scripture.
Click to expand...

God left us logical dilemmas because we are to know Him thru Faith in His Word.

Faith in His Word supercedes logic because logically it is impossible to know Him apart from Faith.

Logic is trapped inside a cranium
If you look to find it you may need some germanium
Whereas Faith in His Word makes us look like dumb turds
Only in the eyes of those whose logic is for the birds

Faith in His Word is the Real Deal
My Father said so and that is why i Kneel
Trust in Him like a little Child - do it Today
For our Heavenly Father will Smile as He shows you the Way

The Creator who made the world and all things
He is so Smart that He did not even use a graph or a Chart
Nor did He need man for any Part
His Plans were spoken in Truth and Love
Don't you know that the Spirit is a Dove

In this poem all THREE can be seen
That is, if you Know what i mean
So when you look up at the moon, stars and sun
Always remember where the Light comes From
 
Last edited:
Oh boy. Here I am, an untrained self identifying mountaineer about to go into an avalanche prone terrain and about to say some stuff that will likely get me into trouble. I will speak, then hunker down. Basically, what I'm doing is asking some questions.
When we say 'God', Who are we referring to? The Father, Son, holy Spirit, or all 3? For example, when we say, God became flesh, Who do we mean?
When we speak of the Son of God, what do we mean by that? Metaphor? Literal? We speak of the Son as Creator, but was He a Son then, or later at the incarnation? If later, what was He prior?
If Jesus was not a Son prior to the incarnation, and the trinity as described by the formulas were all coequal coeternal and each one self existent as 3 persons, which one became a Son? How did they decide? And if that was what happened, they merely chose roles to play, then did that not make the entire Father/Son concept a farce?
Before the one part becoming flesh, were they not all Spirit? Did one decide to be holy... Okay, that sounds weird, because obviously they all were, I think I'll quit that line of questioning before the avalanche hits.
If the Son is also God, how did He die? Did He die?
If the unity we speak of between the members of the Godhead is truly as the trinity formulas say, that is indivisible, was there a part of the Son still in heaven while the part on earth died? How were the separate parts of the Son united? Were they? If united, did the one part actually die?
If they all were coeternal, why did God use a Father Son concept to describe their relationships knowing how we would intellectually understand it, one being older than the other. I know, you will all say, such things are in eternity, but in eternity will we not still have a past, present, and future?

Now, all that said, I have a few answers that satisfy me, but I don't have all the answers, and some I'm not 100% sure of, and wondering how many different observations we will get from the above questions.

Time I think to beat a retreat.
 
DavidTree said:
Faith in His Word supercedes logic because logically it is impossible to know Him apart from Faith.
Click to expand...

You used a logical argument to support faith over logic.

Hee-hoo.

I would say we need revelation from God, then we put faith in that, but revelation is more than reading some words.
 
Brakelite said:
Oh boy. Here I am, an untrained self identifying mountaineer about to go into an avalanche prone terrain and about to say some stuff that will likely get me into trouble.
Click to expand...

Don't sound so scared. Nobody is gonna pull you over. We're all friends here.

Brakelite said:
When we say 'God', Who are we referring to? The Father, Son, holy Spirit, or all 3?
Click to expand...

Yep, you nailed it.

Brakelite said:
For example, when we say, God became flesh, Who do we mean?
Click to expand...

Probably Jesus. Just a wild guess. :p

Brakelite said:
When we speak of the Son of God, what do we mean by that? Metaphor? Literal?
Click to expand...

Yep. Nailed it again.

Brakelite said:
We speak of the Son as Creator, but was He a Son then, or later at the incarnation? If later, what was He prior?
Click to expand...

Now we get to some interesting stuff. The filioque and eternal functional subordination.

Since you asked so nicely, I'll just give you the cheat sheet.

The Father has primacy logically, but the since the Trinity was generated outside of space/time there was no temporal before/after.

Brakelite said:
which one became a Son? How did they decide?
Click to expand...

Probably drew straws.

Brakelite said:
And if that was what happened, they merely chose roles to play, then did that not make the entire Father/Son concept a farce?
Click to expand...

We know terms like that have to mean something, right?

This is why we give the Father logical primacy (but not temporal primacy, don't fall into that trap!)

Brakelite said:
Before the one part becoming flesh, were they not all Spirit?
Click to expand...

Yeah...? We don't want to call the Persons of Trinity "parts," that's imprecise.

Nobody likes being called a "part."

Brakelite said:
Did one decide to be holy... Okay, that sounds weird, because obviously they all were, I think I'll quit that line of questioning before the avalanche hits.
Click to expand...

I think all you got was a pebble on the head.

You'll survive. :)

Brakelite said:
If the Son is also God, how did He die?
Click to expand...

God is the author of death and life, God kills, and God makes alive.

Brakelite said:
Did He die?
Click to expand...

Sure did!

Brakelite said:
If the unity we speak of between the members of the Godhead is truly as the trinity formulas say, that is indivisible, was there a part of the Son still in heaven while the part on earth died?
Click to expand...

Sure. But God could theoretically transfer his consciousness to a human for awhile.

It's one of those "God" things.

Brakelite said:
How were the separate parts of the Son united? Were they?
Click to expand...

We don't like to call that "parts," lol. But I'm not here to bury you.

They were united in the being/essence/nature/substance of God.

Brakelite said:
If united, did the one part actually die?
Click to expand...

We like to say the "Person" died.

See, it is "persons" that die.

Not disconnected abstract natures.

Brakelite said:
If they all were coeternal, why did God use a Father Son concept to describe their relationships knowing how we would intellectually understand it, one being older than the other.
Click to expand...

Because God realizes we can be a big boy and stop cramming him into our limited thought.

It would be good to meditate on the difference between logical and temporal order/priority.

God is outside of time—and that will protect you from quite a few heresies out there. :)

Brakelite said:
I know, you will all say, such things are in eternity, but in eternity will we not still have a past, present, and future?
Click to expand...

Yeah, WE, will. Last I checked we aren't God. :)

Now God does ENTER time. But that doesn't mean he still can't be outside it.

It's a "God" thing.

Brakelite said:
Now, all that said, I have a few answers that satisfy me, but I don't have all the answers, and some I'm not 100% sure of, and wondering how many different observations we will get from the above questions. Time I think to beat a retreat.
Click to expand...

Don't be so scared.

None of us have ALL the answers.

And we are all friends here... except the mean ones, but that happens online you know. :)
 
Brakelite said:
Oh boy. Here I am, an untrained self identifying mountaineer about to go into an avalanche prone terrain and about to say some stuff that will likely get me into trouble. I will speak, then hunker down. Basically, what I'm doing is asking some questions.
When we say 'God', Who are we referring to? The Father, Son, holy Spirit, or all 3? For example, when we say, God became flesh, Who do we mean?
When we speak of the Son of God, what do we mean by that? Metaphor? Literal? We speak of the Son as Creator, but was He a Son then, or later at the incarnation? If later, what was He prior?
If Jesus was not a Son prior to the incarnation, and the trinity as described by the formulas were all coequal coeternal and each one self existent as 3 persons, which one became a Son? How did they decide? And if that was what happened, they merely chose roles to play, then did that not make the entire Father/Son concept a farce?
Before the one part becoming flesh, were they not all Spirit? Did one decide to be holy... Okay, that sounds weird, because obviously they all were, I think I'll quit that line of questioning before the avalanche hits.
If the Son is also God, how did He die? Did He die?
If the unity we speak of between the members of the Godhead is truly as the trinity formulas say, that is indivisible, was there a part of the Son still in heaven while the part on earth died? How were the separate parts of the Son united? Were they? If united, did the one part actually die?
If they all were coeternal, why did God use a Father Son concept to describe their relationships knowing how we would intellectually understand it, one being older than the other. I know, you will all say, such things are in eternity, but in eternity will we not still have a past, present, and future?

Now, all that said, I have a few answers that satisfy me, but I don't have all the answers, and some I'm not 100% sure of, and wondering how many different observations we will get from the above questions.

Time I think to beat a retreat.
Click to expand...
The Son is eternal just as the Holy Spirit are eternal. The Son( 2nd Person of the Trinity) became flesh , human, man. And He forever remains God Incarnate, in the flesh.

God can mean all 3, just One like the Father. God can mean the Son or Holy Spirit. The context lf the passage will determine the meaning. :)

hope this helps !!!
 

Similar threads

S
The misuse and abuse of John 17:3 by Unitarians to promote Unitarianism.
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
3K
TomL
T
P
Knowing God through knowing nature
Replies
1
Views
32
praise_yeshua
P
T
Ignatius of Antioch’s Proclamation of the Essential Deity of Christ
Replies
0
Views
40
TomL
T
Johann
5 Non-Negotiables from the Church Fathers on the Incarnation
6 7 8
Replies
153
Views
1K
101G
101G
Pancho Frijoles
Jesus claimed exclusivity
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
1K
JoshebB
JoshebB
Back
Top Bottom